Archive

In our federalist system of government, individual states constitute laboratories of democracy and remain free to enact laws as they see fit, absent explicit federal power over a particular area. That’s a fundamental value of conservatism and libertarianism, so it was disappointing this week to see that Senators Lindsey Graham (R – South Carolina) and Marco Rubio (R – Florida) were among those reintroducing proposed legislation that would impose a blanket, nationwide prohibition of online gaming.

Such a law would commandeer states’ historical and constitutional right to regulate gaming, never mind that it would mean yet another imposition of federal power into citizens’ entertainment choices and how they spend their own hard-earned dollars.

Stated simply, individual states across the nation have authorized online poker and various other forms of Internet wagering for citizens within their own borders, with many more considering similar moves. Unfortunately, the ill-advised new proposed federal legislation introduced by Senators Graham and Rubio would upend that state of affairs. The so-called Restoration of America’s Wire Act of 2015, which wouldn’t “restore” the Wire Act to its original meaning but rather significantly expand its reach contrary to the Fifth Circuit and Justice Department rulings, aims to impose a de facto prohibition on online gaming in all 50 states and thereby increase federal regulatory power. Proponents claim that the new bill would protect children and problem gamers, but the more realistic consequence would be shutting down existing law-abiding companies and driving commerce toward criminal sites and unaccountable overseas entities less interested in restricting minors or problem gamers.

The better option is to maintain existing law, which rewards law-abiding domestic companies and ensures greater safety and security. And as noted above, the proposed legislation would grossly violate the concepts of state sovereignty, free-market principles and individual consumer freedom. The last thing we need right now is even more federal regulation of states and legal commerce, particularly within the flourishing Internet sector.

Conservatives, libertarians and Americans of every other political persuasion should therefore oppose the so-called Restoration of America’s Wire Act, and contact their Senators and Representatives to demand the same.

Gaming is an issue traditionally governed at the state level, and rightfully so. Under our federalist system, such questions are best resolved according to what the citizens of individual states – our “laboratories of democracy” – prefer. What fits the citizens of Nevada may differ from what fits the citizens of New Hampshire, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, some in Congress who typically demonstrate better political and policy judgment hope to impose a blanket, nationwide, one-size-fits-all prohibition of online gaming upon all 50 states. The proposed bill failed in the last Congress, but this week on Capitol Hill its ill-advised reincarnation will be the focus of a Congressional hearing. Nothing has changed over the past year to suddenly justify a bill that we opposed in its first iteration:

The so-called Restoration of America’s Wire Act (H.R. 4301 in the House and S. 2159 in the Senate), which wouldn’t ‘restore’ the Wire Act to its original meaning but rather significantly expand its reach contrary to the Fifth Circuit and Justice Department rulings, aims to impose a de facto prohibition on online gaming in all 50 states and thereby increase federal regulatory power. Proponents claim that the new bill would protect children and problem gamers, but the more realistic consequence would be shutting down existing law-abiding companies and driving commerce toward criminal sites and unaccountable overseas entities less interested in restricting minors or problem gamers.

The better option is to maintain existing law, which rewards law-abiding domestic companies and ensures greater safety and security. And as noted above, the proposed legislation would grossly violate the concepts of state sovereignty, free-market principles and individual consumer freedom. The last thing we need right now is even more federal regulation of states and legal commerce, particularly within the flourishing Internet sector.”

Proponents have even attempted to rig the hearing to exclude opposition voices. But regardless of parliamentary shenanigans, the bottom line is that this is an ill-advised bill. Conservatives and libertarians should strongly oppose this intrusion into individual states’ rights and consumer freedom, and contact their elected representatives to make their preference clear.

We at CFIF believe that the issue of online gaming should remain something addressed at the state level, as opposed to a new one-size-fits all nationwide ban over all 50 states. We therefore oppose proposed federal legislation deceptively named the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA).

Rather than disrespect the foundational concept of state sovereignty in our federal system, not to mention the principles of free markets and individual consumer choice, it would be better for Congress to simply maintain existing law. After all, what reasonable person today believes that even more federal regulation of something traditionally left to states and individual Americans should be commandeered by federal bureaucrats within a one-size-fits all straightjacket? On the heels of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moving last week to regulate Internet service as a “public utility,” that question is particularly potent regarding something affecting the Internet sector.

Unfortunately, some in Congress don’t even appear interested in allowing a balanced debate of the pending legislation. As detailed by Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner this week, a subcommittee hearing on RAWA is overloaded with witnesses there to support the bill. Efforts to persuade the subcommittee to allow greater ideological balance, or even to permit equal time in a separate conference room, apparently fell of deaf ears.

That obviously suggests fear on the part of proponents of the proposed bill that equal time would undermine their case, and at any rate it certainly doesn’t satisfy fundamental concepts of fairness and open debate. The proposed legislation is bad enough. But for proponents to resort to questionable tactics in advancing it only makes things worse.

Here at the Center for Individual Freedom, we broadly favor the federalist and Tenth Amendment concept of states’ rights and individual liberty, as our name suggests.

Both principles are implicated in an emerging debate at the Congressional level. Namely, proposed new legislation that would prohibit all 50 states and their citizens from allowing online poker and other gaming as they see fit. That would upend states’ historical right to regulate gaming, and it would obviously mean yet further intrusion of federal power into individual Americans’ right to freely make their own entertainment choices and choose how to spend their own dollars.

Without getting to deep into the weeds, the Wire Act of 1961 was originally enacted to address interstate sports betting via telephone, partly an effort to fight organized crime in that domain. In 2013, the Justice Department determined that the Wire Act is inapplicable to non-sports Internet wagering, based upon relevant caselaw and legislative history. That confirmed that other forms of online poker and gaming remain properly in the realm of individual states to legislate. It also accorded with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court to consider the question, which had determined in 2002 that the Wire Act addresses sports gambling only.

On that reasoned basis, multiple states have authorized online poker and various other forms of Internet wagering for citizens within their own borders, with many more considering similar moves.

Unfortunately, that’s where the ill-advised new proposed federal legislation comes in. The so-called Restoration of America’s Wire Act (H.R. 4301 in the House and S. 2159 in the Senate), which wouldn’t “restore” the Wire Act to its original meaning but rather significantly expand its reach contrary to the Fifth Circuit and Justice Department rulings, aims to impose a de facto prohibition on online gaming in all 50 states and thereby increase federal regulatory power. Proponents claim that the new bill would protect children and problem gamers, but the more realistic consequence would be shutting down existing law-abiding companies and driving commerce toward criminal sites and unaccountable overseas entities less interested in restricting minors or problem gamers.

The better option is to maintain existing law, which rewards law-abiding domestic companies and ensures greater safety and security. And as noted above, the proposed legislation would grossly violate the concepts of state sovereignty, free-market principles and individual consumer freedom. The last thing we need right now is even more federal regulation of states and legal commerce, particularly within the flourishing Internet sector.

Conservatives, libertarians and Americans of every other political persuasion should therefore oppose the so-called Restoration of America’s Wire Act, and contact their Senators and Representatives to demand the same.